COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/539/2018HC GujaratGJHC24029665201807 August 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondent assessee's advocate brought to its attention that the issues raised in the present appeals are concluded against the Department. This conclusion is based on a prior decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, which dealt with the same assessee but for earlier assessment years. The Court found this submission to be decisive. Therefore, the High Court held that the present appeals stand dismissed as far as this Court is concerned, because the issues are concluded against the Department. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order or the specific grounds raised by the Revenue, relying solely on the precedent established in the earlier case. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was dismissed based on the concluded nature of the issues.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed these Tax Appeals challenging a common order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘D’. The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013. The ITAT's order allowed the assessee's appeals, thereby negating the findings of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The core of the dispute revolves around the denial of benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the lower authorities, which the ITAT reversed. The Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision to allow the assessee's appeal and set aside various issues for re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal and negating the denial of benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act by the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of Sections 11 and 12, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition of Rs.1365,83,14,363/- on account of premium on land and shades back to the Assessing Officer, in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issue of depreciation allowance for re-examination by the Assessing Officer, in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act? 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issue of carry forward and set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of the current and subsequent years to the Assessing Officer, in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act? 6. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance in respect of unpaid leave encashment to the Assessing Officer, in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The respondent assessee, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., pointed out that the issues raised in these appeals are concluded against the Department by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, concerning earlier assessment years but involving the same assessee. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the assessee's appeal and negating the findings of the lower authorities, particularly in light of Section 2(15) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15),Section 13(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 47 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

C/TAXAP/535/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 535 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 536 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 537 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 539 of 2018 ================================================================ COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) Versus GUJARAT INDUSTIRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 07/08/2018

COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘D’ in ITA No.427/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.544/Ahd./2017 for the Assessment Year : 2013-2014, ITA No.2738/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012-2013 and ITA No.2700/Ahd./2016 for the Assessment Year : 2012- Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/535/2018 ORDER 2013, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law :- “[A] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal, negating the finding of the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing officer denying the benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Act? [B] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 and 12 which the Assessing Officer disallowed by invoking the provision of Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of addition of Rs.1365,83,14,363/- made on account of premium on land and shades back to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of AO on merit? [D] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of depreciation allowance for re-examination at the end of Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of AO? [E] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of carry forward and set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of the current year and subsequent years to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of CIT(A) on merits? [F] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the issue of disallowance in respect of unpaid leave encashment to the Assessing Officer in view of the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act in place to uphold the decision of CIT(A) on merits?” Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/535/2018 ORDER 2. Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. B.S. Soparkar has pointed out that so far as this Court is concerned, the issues / questions raised in the present Appeals are concluded against the Department, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Industrial Development

Corporation in Tax

Appeal No.380/2017 and allied Appeals, in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to the earlier assessment years. 3. In that view of the matter, the present Appeals stand DISMISSED, as so far as this Court is concerned as the issues are concluded against the Department. Sd/- (M.R. SHAH, J) Sd/- (A.Y. KOGJE, J) CAROLINE Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →